The essential nature of the Qur'an and the status of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) in the process of revelation are subjects of serious debate among contemporary religious scholars. Among them, Dr. Soroush has proposed several different readings and interpretations of the nature of revelation. In one of these readings, he contends that revelation is not Divine speech, but rather the "Muhammadan Word." To explain this view, he employs the analogy of rainfall, aiming to demonstrate that a single phenomenon can simultaneously have both divine and natural explanations. Through this approach, he emphasizes the role of human agency in the process of the Qur'an's production, ultimately concluding that this line of reasoning supports the Qur'an being the Muhammadan Word. Using the method of critical analysis, the present study meticulously examines Soroush's argument, elucidates its logical structure, and critiques it from both methodological and substantive perspectives. This research concludes that the rainfall analogy not only fails to substantiate the theory of the Qur'an being the "Muhammadan Word," but, by emphasizing the 'receptive capacity' (qābili) of the Prophet (PBUH), it contradicts that theory and instead affirms the divine and supra-empirical nature of the Qur'anic revelation.